Odin

I think you can look at a GM hire who has GMed before for their philosophy, management style, and types of moves they tend make. Otherwise it can be difficult to parse through from the outside.

Hinkie made one "good" draft pick in Embiid, who might end up going the same direction of Oden, if these injuries never get figured out. He also ruined relationships with multiple agents with his shenanigans. I haven't seen much from him besides the ability and willingness to tear apart a team and very obviously tank. No thanks.

Yep. Hire a guy to create a great organization who knows the game of basketball, and get out of there.

Oh, I know- just hope we can bring a guy in that can create a well run organization for once. (I know it might be difficult with the people on top)

Matt Lloyd sounds good for the same reason Hennigan sounded good- a decent to good eye for talent in the Draft. I think that is important, but whoever comes here needs to be a better negotiator and better at getting free agents who actually fit the team.

I forgot about Yao. Jermaine O'Neal works too Not sure Bogut in Milwaukee was successful, they only had one winning season with him. I always thought of Toronto Bosh as a 4, in Miami he started to evolve into more of a 5. Horford kind of works. Is Memphis built around Gasol? Anyway, I think we can all agree that the league has struggled to build around a center since the 90's- but that it doesn't mean that teams will continue to struggle to build around centers.

To Optimist's point, how many teams have successfully built around a center since the 90s? You have us with Dwight, and the Spurs with Duncan, if you consider him a center. Maybe Detroit, if you see them as having been built around Ben Wallace, but that is pretty arguable. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be the point Optimist was trying to get to, which I think is fair.

I agree that a "traditional" center is likely dead- but Optimist seemed to be questioning the validity of building around a center at all in this day and age. I don't know if any of the players you listed were foundation players for their teams which were built around. And the argument could probably go that "traditional" point guards, "traditional" shooting guards, "traditional" small forwards, and "traditional" power forwards are no longer really functional in our day and age either.

I think the goal should always be to get the best player possible, whatever position they play. The issue is that between Dwight and the current batch of centers, (and between Shaq, Tim Duncan (who basically played center the second half of his career), and Dwight) there weren't any center talents that you could build around. That doesn't mean the center as a force is dead, just that the talent wasn't there. The role of the center will continue to change, just as all positions have changed over time. But that doesn't mean you cannot build around the position- coaches and GMs just need to change their approach.

I would trade Gordon for Jokic, and I am a big Gordon fan. Jokic isn't that good defensively (though Denver is not a good defensive team either, so...), but 63.7% TS%, 11.7% ORB%, +12.8 points per 48 minutes on/off with Denver a good team with him on the court and a bad team with him off, Denver having a 5% higher EFG% with him on the floor than off, with 9% more field goals assisted makes him a very interesting player. My one fear would be that he is basically an improved, passing version of Vucevic with a better 3 pt %, which would bring some of the same issues as Vuch has, with needing good defenders around him. However, he is much more efficient than Vuch (Vuch's best TS% was 54.8%, 9% lower than Jokic's this year), and you can definitely build an offense around his multitude of skills.

I know you are being facetious, but NBA teams are just becoming more and more valuable, just by being part of the NBA. The Magic not only have their highest revenues ever, but also their highest operating income ever. AKA, while the Magic might suck, they are very profitable- and money making organizations are never cheap. Forbes currently values the Magic at $920 million dollars. https://www.forbes.com/teams/orlando-magic/

Hadn't heard that about his foot.

I certainly wouldn't trade him for Brown or Ingram. That would be like trading Gordon for a rookie Hezonja. Simmons is debatable as we haven't seen anything from him in the NBA.

If they are making a change, which I bet everyone sees as basically inevitable at this point, I want them to interview as many guys as they can, looking for a guy that has a really strong plan on how to get the team contending again. The hire should: 1. Have a strong concrete plan on the best path to relevancy 2. Have contingency plans for the inevitable shifts that will happen (AKA show that he is able to think of alternative solutions and have reasons why they should be successful) 3. Have good knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of the current team 4. Have good negotiating skills for inevitable trades and contract negotiations 5. Have a good eye for talent in the league and the draft 6. Have a good understanding of the Cap 7. have good relationships with and respect from other GMs, agents, and players 8. have a strong backbone to be able to take criticism and stick to smart moves Shouldn't be hard, right? Minus any the above, the ability to hire the right people to complement his strengths and cover his weaknesses. Basically I want a charismatic super computer as our new GM.

He is like the living proof of the hot hand.

Oh, that makes sense. Completely misread the above post.

Why Sacramento? They lose their pick to Philly if theirs is better.

I mean I think it depends upon what you are trading.

In a world where the Lakers pick 1 or 2, do they even take Ball? LaVar Ball is just burning all sorts of bridges and his son isn't even in the league yet. What would really be hilarious is if the Lakers drafted him, then traded him away later.

I don't know if it even needs to be every game, but it needs to be 75-80% of the time, where other players can pick up the slack when he isn't.

I think you still take Fultz and Ball over Payton as the Best Player Available. We are in the position to take whoever is the best player available. They can play behind Payton for a year or so if they are not ready, or, if they are, we can find a trading partner for Payton. (If they are ready year one, we probably got ourselves a gem).

I mean almost every single advanced stat is not in his favor, but ok.

1. Saric actually isn't that much better of a passer than Gordon. 2. Shooting % by distance 0-3 feet- Gordon 69.5% Saric 60% 3-10 feet- Gordon 29.6% Saric 43.5% 10-16 feet- Gordon 42.7% Saric 40.8% 16-3pt line- Gordon 31.4% Saric 26.3% 3 pt. Gordon 28.4 Saric 31.6 TS% Gordon 52.2% Saric 50.8% Not sure that points to a "better shooter" Not sure why 40% is where you are proven wrong about Gordon. Saric is not a good shooter either. Suprise! 3. I would argue that Gordon's rebounding has been muted by playing more on the perimeter earlier this year. Gordon's # last year were much higher, and rb% usually doesn't change that much. I would make a bet his numbers are higher next year, at least in the realm of 13% TRB%, which is around where Saric is now. 4. For being more advanced offensively Saric sure turns the ball over a lot more. 5. Gordon has a positive impact on the team performance. Saric does not.

So, who should be available for our second 1st round pick?

Most stats that are not counting stats actually lean in favor of Gordon. Gordon has a higher TS% Gordon has a higher PER Gordon has a higher WS/48 Gordon has a lower TOV % Gordon has a higher BPM Gordon has a higher VORP Gordon has a higher STL% (very slight to almost be negligible) Gordon has a higher BLK% (also very slight to basically be negligible) Saric has a higher TRB% (Though both seem to impact the team rebounding equally, with the team rebounding ~1% better with them on the court than off the court, take it how you will.) Saric has a higher AST% (Though, surprisingly, only by 4%)